DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Philadelphia terminates ICE contract after activists storm city hall; DHS rips 'misguided' move

Sorry.

Edit to add: You used to be one that could have a serious discussion, logically. I feel that has changed.

It's been more than 4 times, Clem, and you know it.

You have gone from someone on the "other side" that could discuss, to someone that has become what he despised previously.

That's fine. I don't make any rules here. I still respect you. You deserve that, no doubt. Unlike some others on here that I don't even read, I read your posts. There just seems to be a bit of acidity in them that I didn't notice before. Before .......as in, 1 1/2 years ago.

If you want to go on common perception and opinion, sure, but it is important to understand that just because it is your opinion, does not make it fact.

The facts are, that it IS a legal question, not one of opinion or perception.

Check my sig line and apply it. I did NOT state that they were non-citizens.

The legal point is that NO ONE can define what EXACTLY a US Citizen was, at that time. You absolutely can NOT commit treason against an entity of which you are NOT a citizen. Lee was a citizen of Virginia, that is certain and known with no doubt. Whether he was a US citizen is the question with no answer, and no answer to that question means no treason.

They were NOT granted citizenship after the war was over. The whole point here is that that concept DID NOT EXIST, as a defined legal term, at that time.

Just because a whole bunch of people insisted the earth was flat, does not mean that it actually was. It does mean that many people would agree with the concept because they were afraid to have an independent opinion.

Not a problem I suffer from.

I almost never throw my full support towards anyone, because they'll let you down in the end, but Krasner is doing some real good things.

You're not just the only person to get banned from DawgTalkers for threatening to rape another poster, but you're also the only person to get banned for it *twice*.

Conformity was never a problem you suffered from; I doubt anyone would disagree.

You're asking for a legal judgement on a case that couldn't be tried due to statue of limitations with no sense of irony. You're also asking for cases that individuals were pardoned for their crimes during "the great rebellion". "The Great Rebellion" comes from the President at the time, Andrew Johnson. You can imagine that no one thinks that a 4 year war is a rebellion, but that just makes you deluded and you're the one insisting that the earth is flat.

I still have those talks. I just have them in private now. PM me with any subject, and we'll kick it like in the old days.

And you're right: I'm salty as hell these days, but it's been building for longer than 1.5 years. More like 3+. I'll leave it to you to discern what may have happened at that point in history.

Additionally, you know that you can find me in EE, PF, and 'other spots on the web.' Ask yourself if the same Clem you see here is the Clem you see there. I think you know what I mean.

I can still have a decent talk... with decent people. Like right this minute. Others' mileage may will differ... and they'll get from me exactly what they earn. I've spent 45 of my 60 years being polite and proper around people who don't seem to feel the need to reciprocate. That's long enough- and their 'grace time' has expired. Now its time for me to experiment with how thick their skin is. (hmmm... I wonder if I could find the right words???)

So, I guess we could put it this way: 2006-14, I was 70% Martin. Now I'm 60% Malcolm. And Martin's getting ready for retirement at PP.

All I'll say is this: You need to be you.

I, myself, have tried to go the other way, after years of fighting/arguing politics. Ain't worth it, for me, for the most part.

You be you - you be the new you, and I'll be me - the new me.

RAPE was your fantasy, all I ever proposed was an ice cream delivery.

Let's try this - Was OJ Simpson guilty of murder? The answer is no, he is not, because we have one system, and one system only, to determine guilt or innocence of murder, and that system said not guilty. He would also be not guilty if there was never any trial at all.

Opinions, yours, mine, the presidents, absolutely do not matter. One way to get that answer, one way only.

The Confederates did not commit treason because they were never found guilty of it. I see you are still ignoring the citizenship aspect, understandable, but it is to many the foundation of their defense, if mounted, and is pretty clear that there is no definite answer. The law has since been amended, you might want to educate yourself on this area.

And because 12,000 of them were pardoned. You know they had courts back then? People were charged with Rebellion and treason for conspiring with the Confederates. What do you think that was all about?

Name three people who were charged with treason. I only know of two, and none went to trial.

What is your source for the 12,000 who were pardoned, or is that not intended to be a number with any reference to reality?

SFAIK Lee and many others refused to accept any pardon, as they had committed no crime.

The OJ example was poorly thought out, because you and I both know that even though OJ was found innocent at trial, he was still guilty of murder. That's why he was buried in the civil suit, everyone knew it.

In your confederate argument I would put up Benedict Arnold, even though he was a British Citizen that rebelled as an American Patriot, after he later switched sides and fought against the US... He is undoubtedly a traitor having commited treason. But was he ever found guilty of treason in court or court marshall?

Do links matter? You're still claiming that it wasn't a Rebellion...

I'll leave you with the words of General George Thomas
"The crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand-in-hand with the defenders of the (US) Government.”

Look, son, there are few things I say that are poorly thought out.

What you and I both know about OJ was, in fact, exactly the point, because those opinions are MEANINGLESS. EVERYONE has ALWAYS KNOWN all sorts of stupid crap that is not true.

Everyone knew that man could not fly, and that the sun revolved around the earth. Everyone knew that Joe Shobert would suck at MLB, and that it would not matter because he would only see one third or less of the plays.

Most people are idiots who will parrot whatever the slickest salesman they listened to most recently has said.

Guilty of murder is a finding made by a jury. There is no other way to determine that. Unless you think the lynch mobs were always right?

There were only 4 people tried for treason before the civil war, all were pardoned, none of the convictions can be justified until after the civil war. I have explained the reason for this.

Do you know what a Wabchuck is? No one does, because I just made it up. Could I be convicted for stealing your Wabchuck? At minimum, you would have to define what it is, or else I can not be convicted of stealing it.

You have to be a citizen to commit treason, and that is not clearly defined until after 1865. No citizenship, no treason. It is fairly simple.

I do understand that you do not LIKE confederates because of what you think they represent, and have a strong desire to label them as bad people. That is OK. It does not change the facts, it does not alter reality. I have observed that a great many people seem to think that it does.

Man can not fly.

What men did was build contraptions that had the ability to take flight, and ultimately led to the current aerospace industry we see today.

Wow..........that was an epic post. I'm not sure what it was about, though.

Nelson has finally met his legal match.

I can understand that.

Wow, my head hurts from reading your posts in this thread.

There you go making assumptions again... So here is your serving of OCD.

First don't assume you can call me son and think I won't be forced to show you who your daddy is, boy.

Second the court gets it wrong at times, they are not infallible now are they? If you need proof just look at overturned verdicts and mistrials. Hell the whole justice system is based on the state bearing the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and a slew of other laws and rules that truly rig the system in favor of the defendant! Why? Because they are not infallible and it's better to let 1000 guilty men go free than to lock up one innocent man.

That does not make that guilty man NOT GUILTY, it just makes him not guilty in the eyes of the law.

And of course I don't think lynch mobs are okay, don't be ridiculous. But that still does not mean that a man as obviously guilty as OJ, should somehow be regarded as a redeemed wrongly accused man when the verdict returned is not guilty, yet anyone with a brain can see that he was guilty as sin.

I had black friends rooting for him to get off, hell I even started out that way but watching that all unfold sure changed my mind.

I will acknowledge that you are technically correct in that the court found him not guilty. The rest of your argument lacks merit although I see why you think that way. I'll explain:

Let's say that completely unprovoked I pull a gun on you and fire at your head from 10 feet away but miss you completely. You have me charged for attempted murder. My representation gets me off on a technicality, case dismissed. Does that mean I am not guilty of attempting to murder you?

Same scenario but this time a jury finds me not guilty. Does that change the fact that I pointed my gun at your head and fired?

The world is not black and white. Which leads me to you saying I do not like confederates because of what i think they represent... You know nothing but your own assumptions.

I'm quite a war buff. I liked both side of the civil war for what they represented! You see the confederate soldiers were not fighting so much to keep slaves as they were to preserve their way of life and continue financially competing with the industrious northern states. No man wants to be a burden or lose their livelihood.

Obviously I don't agree with slavery and would have been an abolitionist had I lived then. But the men who fought the war on both side were honorable and fought for what they believed to be right, fought for their families, fought for their countries...

Fast forward to today, now we have 150 year old statues that are racially offensive because the soldiers did fight to preserve slavery. But it's not just that. These statues represent Jim Crow, lynchings, the terrorizing of the Klan, segregation in the south, white supremacy, and 400 years of racial mistreatment of black men, women, and children at the hands of white men who thought like these soldiers.

I myself have NEVER seen a statue that I found personally offensive, but the ideology that they represent disgusts me. I wouldn't put one in my yard and don't think they have a place in public due to the scars of racism.

I'm not a believer in reparations, but that does not mean I can't see the glaring racial wrongs our forefathers commited. The Native Americans, Blacks, Mexicans, and many immigrants (especially Chinese and Japanese) were historically wronged by white Americans. I find no pride in those wrongs, none.

I don't fault the people of the time for doing what they did, but as we socially evolve we must recount the mistakes of the past, recognize and acknowledge them for what they were, and find a way forward that does not repeat those same mistakes.

Now the mistake you made was making assumptions about me, who I am, what I believe. I don't fit your conservative mold for generic libtards... I'm OldColdDawg dammit! But you can call me daddy.

Where oh where did Nelson go? Did he catch a ban already or is he just hiding from OCD? This guy comes in and slaps us in the face time and time again then melts away like butter in a hot pan... I know his secret, he is far from being as smart as he pretends to be. Sad.

Yeah, he's gone. Doesn't show up in the user list.

lol. The guy never makes it more than a couple of days. I can't imagine how mentally tortured you have to be to keep coming back if you are like him. You religious guys should pray for him, I think he might be in great need of it.

I laughed out loud.

He is the weirdest dude I've ever come across on an internet message board.

If I had to venture a guess, I imagine he's probably had his fair share of real life timeouts as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but does it not say "innocent until proven guilty".

Yeah, O.J. was innocent.

You do realize that when someone isn't convicted they say are found "Not Guilty". They don't say innocent.

Not proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has nothing to do with someone is innocent. It means you didn't have the evidence with which to convict them.

Are you referring to legally or morally. There is a difference.

Legally, OJ is / was innocent. Morally, not so much.

I think its time we start using facts over feelings.

I was referring to factually. Someone had to have murdered Nicole Simpson in the OJ example. Just because no one has been found guilty doesn't mean no one murdered her.



Do you have a quote board you pull from when you want cute things to say? I don't even understand what facts over feelings means in this context. How about we stop using buzz words, especially ones coined by a proll. Regurgitating cute stuff we read online doesn't tell a story of quality independent thought.

Someone did murder her. Legally speaking it was not OJ. So no, you were not referring to it "factually".

seems like you are still using "feelings over facts".

Oh man that’s priceless.

What you seem to be saying is a blanket statement that suggests everyone who is found not guilty is innocent. I'll say it yet again, when someone isn't convicted, they say they were found "not guilty". They don't say they were found "innocent".

It's just like people on death row are sometimes exonerated. The justice system isn't infallible. That's not based on feelings. Those are facts.

You are completely ignoring the FACT that you are innocent until proven guilty. There is no debating that.

Yet you completely ignore the fact that you're not found "innocent" if a jury doesn't convict you. You're found, "not guilty".

So your assertion is, if I murdered you, and was tried and found innocent of the crime, I didn't in fact kill you?

That would make you illegally guilty.

When you are going through a criminal case, you might be just as excited to think about a not guilty verdict as you are to think of proving your innocence. It is very important that you take a step back so you can take a look at the differences between innocent and not guilty.

What is innocent?

Being deemed innocent means that you have been cleared of all speculation that you committed a crime. Innocence isn't really something that can be proven at a trial.


What is not guilty?

When it comes to a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." That last clause "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred. Being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence wasn't strong enough for a guilty verdict.


What's the big deal with innocent versus not guilty?

In order to be found not guilty, you have to go through the expense and stress of a trial. In some cases, even being found not guilty won't get your good name back. Being found innocent is something that can be done before trial in various ways. Asserting your innocence and then having charges dropped would be a way that you could truly note that you were innocent.

Source: FindLaw, "Actual Innocence and How It Differs From a Not Guilty Verdict," Ephrat Livni, Esq., accessed May 26, 2016


http://www.amacdonaldlaw.com/blog/2016/may/what-is-the-difference-between-innocent-and-not-/

U.S. Deports Mexican Wife of American Marine Veteran

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/art...-marine-veteran

By Joey Roulette

ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. government deported a Mexican woman on Friday who had lived in the country illegally for nearly two decades despite efforts by lawmakers to keep her in Florida with her husband, a Marine Corps veteran, and her two American children.

Alejandra Juarez, 38, was joined by her family and her congressman, Darren Soto, at Orlando International Airport for tearful farewells before her flight back to Mexico.

Juarez sought to illegally enter the United States in 1998 and was ordered to be removed, precluding her future chances at getting a visa or becoming a citizen, according to Soto and media interviews Juarez has given.

She illegally re-entered the country in 2000, the same year she married Temo Juarez, a Mexico native who went on to serve in the war in Iraq with the U.S. Marines and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen.

After being discovered in the country during a 2013 traffic stop, she had been required to check in every six months with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Her lawyers said to reporters she was only now being deported because of U.S. Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" policy on illegal immigration.

ICE, which did not respond to questions on Friday, has said that Juarez's re-entry after her removal is considered a felony.

"Mr President, you deporting me is not going to hurt just me; you're making a veteran suffer," Alejandra Juarez said at the airport. "You always say you love veterans. If you really love veterans, why didn't you pardon me?"

Her husband has told reporters that he voted for Trump in the 2016 election.

Trump's Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, was criticized by immigrant groups for deporting scores of non-citizen U.S. military veterans and for deporting immigrants whose only crime was re-entering the country after an earlier removal order.